Chuck Kennedy wrote:The problem is that target manufacturers might design baskets to enhance the chances for a disc to go thru the side and top then advertise their targets catch more putts. I don't believe that's a direction we want to encourage. The new rule is attempting to cover a problem with current designs and encourage future target designs to get better.

You already have specifications in place for baskets. I don't think you need to worry that a manufacture MIGHT design a basket with a hole in the top. If it ends up in the basket, who cares how it got there? I like the wedge and hanging part of the rule, but the rest is dumb.

Those 2009 revised specs for smaller basket openings are only for Championship basket models, not the Standard and Basic models. Current Championship models are grandfathered so allowing wedgies that go all the way thru still reduces incentives for them to upgrade their grandfathered design. Granted, this isn't a huge factor but it's still in the wrong direction to encourage "bad" throws.

Here's my answer to the flag pole hit and drop from another website: "I'm not sure there's a direct equivalent in golf to a wedgie since there's no "illegal" way to enter the cup. Now, in Minnesota we have gophers. Perhaps a wayward gopher digs another hole on the green and accidentally tunnels the route into the golf cup below grade. The player's upshot lands in the gopher hole and rolls almost or even into the cup from below. When the player goes to look for his ball, he sees it just barely peeking into the cup from the gopher tunnel."

FWIW, i believe if youre on the putting surface and your shot hits the flag you are penalized not that its relevant to this discussion, but as far as a potential illegal way of getting the ball in the cup it sort of applies

Roc Lover wrote:FWIW, i believe if youre on the putting surface and your shot hits the flag you are penalized not that its relevant to this discussion, but as far as a potential illegal way of getting the ball in the cup it sort of applies

It's not illegal when on the putting surface. You have the option to leave the flag in the hole for your putt. The only time you get penalized is if your caddy (or you) lay the flag down on the ground behind the hole, you miss and the flag pole stops your ball form rolling. You get an interference penalty (or whomever put the flag pole there, caddy is an extension of you).

I'm just saying if your putter falls through the top, and comes to rest inside the basket (not wedged, and witnessed as falling into the basket) you shouldn't be punished because it didn't hit chains first.

Also here is another scenario (I'm just playing devil's advocate cause this is going to happen in tournaments and it's going to create some issues and all around headache);

You putt, you hit chains, you hit pole on the ricochet it wedges on the inside of the basket. Since it was witnessed, this new rule could have an interpretation that the disc is wedged/wedgie and does not count, technically it is wedged.

Am I reading it wrong?

At this rate the PDGA should just say if the chains aren't holding the disc it doesn't count, at least then we would all know what is considered holing out....

Maybe I'm just being to over critical, but this rule is going to cause some serious problems for tournament play and headaches for TD's everywhere.

Fritz wrote:It's not illegal when on the putting surface. You have the option to leave the flag in the hole for your putt. The only time you get penalized is if your caddy (or you) lay the flag down on the ground behind the hole, you miss and the flag pole stops your ball form rolling. You get an interference penalty (or whomever put the flag pole there, caddy is an extension of you).

Fritz, you're wrong:

17-3. Ball Striking Flagstick or Attendant

The player's ball must not strike:

a. The flagstick when it is attended, removed or held up;b. The person attending or holding up the flagstick or anything carried by him; orc. The flagstick in the hole, unattended, when the stroke has been made on the putting green.

Exception: When the flagstick is attended, removed or held up without the player's authority - see Rule 17-2.

Penalty for Breach of Rule 17-3:Match play - Loss of hole; Stroke play - Two strokes and the ball must be played as it lies.

Hitting the flagstick from off the green is fine.

The wedgies rule is fine with me. Except why change it when the old version was just as reasonable?

But why the ban on falling through the top? There are baskets out there with open tops. The goal is to get it in the basket. Next thing you know they'll get rid of the basket and make you just hit chains.

In ball golf, the next rule is almost like the disc resting on top rule, but resolves in the other direction:

17-4. Ball Resting Against Flagstick

When a player's ball rests against the flagstick in the hole and the ball is not holed, the player or another person authorized by him may move or remove the flagstick, and if the ball falls into the hole, the player is deemed to have holed out with his last stroke; otherwise, the ball, if moved, must be placed on the lip of the hole, without penalty.

99% of the putts that you leave short never go in.
The other 1% never had a chance.

Yeah I was going to point out that you can't hit the flagstick if you are on the putting surface, that is why caddies or a buddy tend it for you when you are far away. The flag lets you see the hole but has to be removed before your ball gets there so you don't strike it.

the way i read it was that all it has to do is come to rest within the target. so if its resting trapped in the chains, at the bottom of the basket, between the chains and poll horizontally , as long as its within the target its good right?

As far as your particular wedgie example if i was TD'ing, and there were witnesses i would call it good if those were the circumstances, since that clause was obv in place to stop angle shooting and throws that were obv no good from being counted as such, i wouldnt think that instance would fall under the rule, at least the way i interpret it.

Roc Lover wrote:that clause was obv in place to stop throws that were obv no good from being counted as such

How 'bout a throw that was "obv good" that banged center chains, bounced off the bottom of the pan & out, hit a tree, then wedged into the side? Good or no good? (Assume there exist witnesses & you are TD.)How 'bout a throw that was "obv no good" that wedged into the side of the pan &, before completely coming to rest, sprung out, hit a tree, and bounced into the chains, coming to rest in the pan? Good or no good? (Assume there exist witnesses & you are TD.)

What a tangled web we weave when we attempt to subjectively "interpret" (read - rewrite to our personal preference of what they '"obv" meant to say, but don't) rules whose plain English wording is unambiguous.

Ryen91 wrote:I am pretty sure I am more intelligent then you think and have allot more knowledge then your post might suggest.

Same kind of funky ricochets (and roll arounds) can and have happened with crossing mando lines and there hasn't been much hue and cry over that rule. And making those calls are typically going to be from farther away than wedgies that are observed by the group.

Why the hostility and angry repeated quoting VR? I was just commenting on how i interpreted what i read, im sorry if someone read what i wrote, sought you out, then shit in your whole grain cereal because of something i said. Im not saying i interpreted it correctly or how it was intended, just how at a first glance without over thinking it. I can appreciate someone who is a no grey area type of guy with stuff like this, but you sounded really really angry there man. May God or whoever have mercy on the poor soul that foot faults in front of you, and hopefully you dont have your stool handy because i dont think prison is ready for that type of rage .

j/k but seriously, why so serious

Last edited by Pwingles on Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.